4.6 Article

Fungal and Bacterial Microbiome Associated with the Rhizosphere of Native Plants from the Atacama Desert

期刊

MICROORGANISMS
卷 8, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms8020209

关键词

abiotic stress; extreme environment; plant growth promotion

资金

  1. Fondo Nacional De Desarrollo Cientifico y Tecnologico (FONDECYT) [3160699, 1170931]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The rhizosphere microbiome is key in survival, development, and stress tolerance in plants. Salinity, drought, and extreme temperatures are frequent events in the Atacama Desert, considered the driest in the world. However, little information of the rhizosphere microbiome and its possible contribution to the adaptation and tolerance of plants that inhabit the desert is available. We used a high-throughput Illumina MiSeq sequencing approach to explore the composition, diversity, and functions of fungal and bacterial communities of the rhizosphere of Baccharis scandens and Solanum chilense native plants from the Atacama Desert. Our results showed that the fungal phyla Ascomycota and Basidiomycota and the bacterial phyla Actinobacteria and Proteobacteria were the dominant taxa in the rhizosphere of both plants. The linear discriminant analysis (LDA) effect size (LefSe) of the rhizosphere communities associated with B. scandens showed the genera Penicillium and Arthrobacter were the preferential taxa, whereas the genera Oidiodendron and Nitrospirae was the preferential taxa in S. chilense. Both plant showed similar diversity, richness, and abundance according to Shannon index, observed OTUs, and evenness. Our results indicate that there are no significant differences (p = 0.1) between the fungal and bacterial communities of both plants, however through LefSe, we find taxa associated with each plant species and the PCoA shows a separation between the samples of each species. This study provides knowledge to relate the assembly of the microbiome to the adaptability to drought stress in desert plants.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据